COFA for 5 Beekman Street, Manhattan Docket 05-0810
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE NEW YORK CITY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1 CENTRE STREET 9TH FLOOR NORTH NEW YORK NY 10007 TEL: 212 669-7700 FAX: 212 669-7780 PERMIT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ISSUE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: DOCKET #: COFA #: 10/13/2004 11/06/2009 05-0810 COFA 05-2577 ADDRESS BOROUGH: BLOCK/LOT: 5 BEEKMAN STREET INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK TEMPLE COURT BUILDING MANHATTAN 90/14 Display This Permit While Work Is In Progress ISSUED TO: Barry Pincus Beekman Development LLC 45 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Pursuant to Section 25-307 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the Landmarks Preservation Commission, at the Public Meeting of November 6, 2003, following the Public Meeting and Public Hearing of October 28, 2003, voted to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the subject premises, as put forward in your application completed on October 2, 2003, and as you were informed in Status Update Letter 04-3011 (LPC 04-1204), issued November 6, 2004. The proposed work, as approved, consists of a building wide master plan for new one-over-one, double-hung aluminum windows and aluminum storefronts with paneled bulkheads, transoms, and pin mounted signage, and the installation of rooftop mechanical equipment, as shown in drawings and photographs labeled A100, and LPC1 through LPC4, dated November 5, 2003, A1 through A7, EX202, EX206, A211, EX301 and EX403, dated September 30, 2003, A201, dated August 14, 2003, A202 and A209, dated November 6, 2003, A401, A402, A403-B, A411, A411-B, A412, A506, A507, A508, LPC402, EX401, EX402, EX404, EX506, EX507, EX508, LPC402, LPC403, and LPC404, dated October 29, 2003, A403, A404, A414, LPC401, and LPC401, dated October 23, 2003, EX203, EX204, EX207, EX208, EX209, and EX210, dated September 18, 2003, and A203 through A208, revised September 30, 2003, prepared by Gene Kaufman, Architect, submitted as components of the application, and presented at the Public Hearing and Public Meetings. In reviewing this proposal, the Commission noted that the designation report states that 5 Beekman Street, the Temple Court Building, is an eclectic office building built in two phases in 1881-83 in the Queen Anne, neo-Grec and Renaissance Revival styles by Silliman and Farnsworth, and in 1889-91 in the Romanesque Revival style by James Farnsworth; and that the style, details and materials of the buildings are among the features which contribute to the special architectural and historic character of the landmark. The Commission also noted that only a few remnants of the historic storefronts exist; and that many of the historic windows were replaced with aluminum windows in a variety of configurations prior to designation. With regard to this proposal, the Commission found that removal of the existing storefronts will eliminate primarily modern infill which detracts from the special historic and architectural character of the building; that the design of the proposed storefronts is reminiscent of historic storefronts that appear on this building in a circa 1940 photograph and in extant historic fragments at the building, and will incorporate the few remaining decorative cast iron ornamental friezes into the new design; that the proposed storefronts feature elements such as transoms, paneled bulkheads, stone bases, and a painted finish, common features of late 19th century storefronts; that the proposed pin mounted signage is a typical signage type for late 19th century buildings; that the proposed storefronts will unify the base of the building by using the same details, configurations, finish and materials throughout the building; that the proposed one-over-one, double-hung windows will unify the façade fenestration, which presently consists of several different configurations; that the proposed windows will match the historic windows in terms of configuration, operation, details and finish; that the difference in material between the proposed and historic windows will not detract from the building's architectural character due to its large scale; that although the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment will be visible from several surrounding public thoroughfares, it will be seen from a great distance, in conjunction with secondary facades, and in context with many other rooftop accretions on surrounding buildings; and that the proposed work will create a harmonious appearance on all facades, restoring the fenestration and storefronts close to their historic appearances, thereby strengthening the special historic and architectural character of the landmark. Based on these findings, the Commission determined the proposed work to be appropriate to the building, and voted to approve this application. However, in voting to grant this approval, the Commission made its determination subject to the condition that the storefront signage and lighting be made unobtrusive, and authorized staff to review and approve these revisions. The Commission authorized the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness upon receipt, review and approval of two signed and sealed copies of the final drawings to be filed at the Department of Buildings for the approved work, with the staff approved revisions to the storefront signage and lighting. Subsequently, the staff of the Commission received drawings A100, A222, A222-ALT, A223, A501, A513, A602, A602c, A621, A621-ALT, A622, A622-ALT, A623, A623-ALT, A624-ALT, A625-ALT, M102, M107, and M108, revised May 6, 2004, A101, A101A, A102, A103, A201A, A221, A301, A302, A403B, A504, A505, A509, A510, A511, A512, A520, A522, A601, A602a, a602b, A604, A605, A611 through A614, A616, A624, A625, A626 through A633, BPP100, D001, D101 through D110, D200 through D206, D208, D209, and D210, dated March 12, 2004, A201, A202, A204, A205, and A603, revised June 4, 2004, A203, A206, A207, A224, A225, A226, A227, A634, A635, and A636, revised June 21, 2004, A203 through A207, and D207, dated February 4, 2004, A208, dated December 19, 2003, A502 and A503, revised May 28, 2004, A521, revised June 16, 2004, A523 and A615, revised April 16, 2004, A210 and A507, revised September 27, 2004, A405, revised September 20, 2004, A208, A209, A406, A412, A506, and A508, revised September 30, 2004, LPC401, LPC402, LPC403, and LPC404, reissued September 27, 2004, S001, S100, S101, S103 through S111, S200, S201, S202, M001, M101, M103 through M106, M109, M301, M302, M401, M501, M601, M602, M603, P001, P002, P100 through P108, P300 through P303, P400, P500, P501, FP100 through FP108, FP300, FP400, FP500, E001, E101 through E110, E200, E300 through E304, E400 through E404, E406 through E409, E600, E601 and E602, revised March 12, 2004, S102, revised February 4, 2004, and A401 through A404, revised October 8, 2004, prepared by Gene Kaufman, Architect, and noted that the signage has been reduced in size, the storefront lighting has been eliminated from the proposal, and the design of the main entrance on Beekman Street has been modified based on the presence of historic fabric that was uncovered recently. The Commission reviewed the drawings and found that the pin mounted signage is better scaled to the dimensions of the storefront; that the entrance design will incorporate original architectural features, thereby restoring it close to its original appearance; and that the proposal approved by the Commission has been maintained. Based on these and the above findings, the drawings have been marked approved by the LPC with a perforated seal and Certificate of Appropriateness 05-2577 is being issued. The storefront and window master plan sets a standard for future storefront and window installations on all PAGE 2 Issued: 10/13/04 DOCKET: 05-0810 facades, and specifically identifies drawings and other documents which contain the approved designs in detail. If the owner wishes to move forward with a portion of the work covered by the master plan, a completed application form is filed with the Landmarks Preservation Commission describing the scope of work and stating that the work will conform to the approved master plan drawings and other documents on file with the Commission, along with a reduced copy of the approved drawings indicating the storefronts or window(s) to be replaced. The staff of the Landmarks Preservation Commission will review the application to ascertain that all proposed work is covered by the master plan, and will send the owner an "Authorization to Proceed" letter allowing the work to proceed. The Authorization to Proceed is sent prior to the commencement of work and is contingent upon adherence to approved master plan drawings. This permit is issued on the basis of the building and site conditions described in the application and disclosed during the review process. By accepting this permit, the applicant agrees to notify the Commission if the actual building or site conditions vary or if original or historic building fabric is discovered. The Commission reserves the right to amend or revoke this permit, upon written notice to the applicant, in the event that the actual building or site conditions are materially different from those described in the application or disclosed during the review process. All approved drawings are marked approved by the Commission with a perforated seal indicating the date of approval. The work is limited to what is contained in the perforated documents. Other work or amendments to this filing must be reviewed and approved separately. The applicant is hereby put on notice that performing or maintaining any work not explicitly authorized by this permit may make the applicant liable for criminal and/or civil penalties, including imprisonment and fines. This letter constitutes the permit; a copy must be prominently displayed at the site while work is in progress. Please direct inquiries to Lisa Schaeffer. Robert B. Tierney Chair PLEASE NOTE: PERFORATED DRAWINGS AND A COPY OF THIS PERMIT HAVE BEEN SENT TO: Gene Kaufman, Arch. cc: G. Kaufman, Arch. PAGE 3 Issued: 10/13/04 DOCKET: 05-0810.